Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'Read-only' merely repeats the annotation; the only added context is the enrollment scoping. It does not contradict annotations, but adds little beyond them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short fragments and fully front-loaded. The trailing 'Read-only' duplicates annotation information and does not strictly earn its place, but the overall definition is appropriately minimal with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a zero-parameter read-only tool whose safety profile is fully carried by annotations. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify what fields or volume of campaign bonus data is returned, which is a modest gap for a list-style tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% for the empty schema, and there are no inputs whose meaning the description would need to clarify. The absence of parameter discussion is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource ('campaign bonuses') and scopes it with 'the creator is enrolled in,' which distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools by resource type. It lacks an explicit verb, but the title supplies 'List,' making the purpose clear. It is somewhat terse but not tautological.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The resource naming implies when to use it (when campaign bonuses for the enrolled creator are needed). However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over closely related siblings like list_promotions or list_discount_codes, and no exclusions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.